On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Jon Kent wrote: > what I'm trying to point out is that 4.2 is not in stable and, > currently, will no tbe in stable for a year or more. It takes time for software to become known stable. [Or at least semi-stable.] If woody had waited for 4.2 to become stable it (probably) still wouldn't have been released, even now. > Thats not good. I think 2.2 is still the default kernel in 3.0 (I > could be wrong) and so on. Thats because 2.2 is known to be stable, and at the time bf were started, 2.4 was still having some questionable issues with its stability. > Sure I can grab this stuff from testing but I need it in stable in > order for me to use in in a production system. Again, stable software takes time to become known as stable. Serious bugs aren't easy to find. [Hell, I just spent the past 4 hours tracking down a nasty bug in DBD::Pg with mod_perl in stable, that I only now triggered with my production code.] If you need the stability, you sacrifice the newer features. If you have to have the newer features, you rebuild newer debs against the stable distribution, or use unofficial sources. > Debian will become an also-ran akin to Slackware if things do _not_ > change. Huh? Market dominance is nice if your selling a product, but it isn't one of Debian's goals, and it certainly isn't one of mine. [Who exactly are we competing against?] Don Armstrong -- I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!" The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpwF2ZfAdyXb.pgp
Description: PGP signature